To the Chairman of the Council of Judges of the Russian Federation
Dmitry Anatolyevich Krasnov
From Natalya Nikolayevna Magnitskaya
07 June 2013
Open Letter on the Case of Sergei Magnitsky
Dear Dmitry Anatolevich,
From media reports, I have learned that on 22 April 2013, the Council of Judges of the City of Moscow issued a decree which directly affected the Constitutional rights and freedoms of my son, Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky, who died 16 November 2009 in the Matrosskaya Tishina Prison pre-trial detention center.
This decree, titled “On the Unfounded Inclusion in the ‘Magnitsky List’ of Judges of Courts of the City of Moscow” concerns the actions of four judges of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow: E.V. Stashina, S.V. Ukhnaleva, S.G. Podoprigorov, and A.V. Krivoruchko regarding my only son. By the decisions of these judges, the members of the investigative group of the Russian Federation Interior Ministry Investigative Committee and officers of the operational convoy were provided conditions for the unlawful criminal prosecution of my son, his detention in custody for a year, and his torture and murder in the Matrosskaya Tishina pre-trial detention center.
Given the existence of indisputable evidence of the death of my son as a result of forcible actions, law-enforcement agencies to this day have not undertaken to establish the true reasons for his death and have not exposed those persons guilty of his death.
Despite the fact that the content of the decree directly affects the interests of my son, and in connection with his death, affects my interests, representatives of the council of Judges of Moscow who prepared this document did not consider it necessary to learn my opinion and take into account the facts and evidence which I possess.
From the text of the decree of the Moscow Council of Judges, it follows that they ignored the conclusions of two independent experts’ organizations that established the violation of my son’s rights and the lack of a proper judicial review of the lawfulness of the actions of members of the investigative group who detained him as a hostage, with the purpose of concealing his testimony which had uncovered the participation of officials of the Interior Ministry and tax agencies in the embezzlement of 5.4 billion rubles from the Russian budget.
The Moscow Council of Judges, citing the study of the “personal files” of judges E.V. Stashina, S.V. Ukhnaleva, S.G. Podoprigorov and A.V. Krivoruchko did not find any grounds “to doubt in any form the lawfulness and conscientiousness of the actions” of their colleagues, despite the outrageous violations of the law in the decisions they took, based on falsified evidence by the members of the investigative group. In justifying the detention of my son in custody, the investigators, without possessing evidence, submitted tampered reports of operations officials which contained deliberate lies and falsifications. In spite of the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedures and the violation of the functions imposed on them by the Russian Federation Constitution to exercise judicial oversight, these judges did not once submit to doubt the false testimony submitted by the biased investigation.
The representatives of the Moscow Council of Judges should have known that their colleagues, Judges E.V. Tashina, S.V. Ukhnaleva, S.G. Podoprigorov and A. V. Krivoruchko rejected 40 complaints made by my son while he was still alive. Their decisions were appealed, including with an appeal to the Russian Constitution Court and the European Court of Human Rights, however he was not able to live to see their review.
In according with Art. 4 of the Rules for the Russian Federation Council of Judges, representatives of the mass media and other persons may be invited to participate in the work of the Council.
Taking into account that the issue affecting the constitutional rights and freedoms of my son represented by me was the subject of a secret discussion by the Council of Judges of Moscow, I urge:
1. That an open discussion be conducted at a meeting of the Russian Federation Council of Judges with my participation, regarding the grounds for including the judges of the City of Moscow in the “Magnitsky List,” and also with the participation of representatives and experts of the Presidential Council on Human Rights and the Public Observatory Commission of the City of Moscow, which have directly studied the circumstances of the detention of my son in custody, and also with representatives of the mass media.
2. According to the results of this discussion, that the appropriate decree taking into account the opinions of all interested persons be passed.
Natalya Nikolaevna Magnitskaya